Prevent counter-terrorism policy harms and alienates British Muslim communities.

Evidence

The Government, the police and other bodies involved in promoting Prevent (including some Muslim civil society organizations) should acknowledge that any benefit to the state which Prevent may provide is significantly outweighed by the harm it inflicts on Muslim communities, and hence on British society as a whole, making Prevent counter-productive in terms of its purported aims. The idea of ‘fundamental British values’ serves only as a rhetorical device when it is considered that Prevent is dividing, stigmatizing and alienating one sector of the population. — A. Hussain, N. Meer, Framing Muslim Integration, 437

Categorization

• XREF: Connects to the ADDENDUM frames on how state policy legitimizes racism, and to liberal-neutral vs. critical accounts of security policy. — connects to: UK state intervention shaped and rivalized Muslim political representation. — A. Hussain, N. Meer, Framing Muslim Integration, 495; UK counter-terror funding redirected civic support away from Islamophobia work. — A. Hussain, N. Meer, Framing Muslim Integration, 496; Integration policy must be decoupled from counter-terrorism aims. — A. Hussain, N. Meer, Framing Muslim Integration, 130 (+11 more)

Related

• Prevent alienates the Muslim communities it claims to engage. (similarity 0.95)
• Prevent policy is discriminatory, disproportionate, and counterproductive (similarity 0.91)
• Prevent is discriminatory in operation and alienates the Muslims it aims to engage (similarity 0.90)
• Prevent’s first phase explicitly placed its burden on Muslim communities (similarity 0.90)
• Prevent is a racist, Islamophobic state policy causing concrete harms (similarity 0.89)
• Integration policy must be decoupled from counter-terrorism aims. (similarity 0.88)
• Counter-terrorism policy forced Muslim groups into complicity or exclusion. (similarity 0.87)
• UK counter-terror funding redirected civic support away from Islamophobia work. (similarity 0.87)
• UK Prevent duty chills campus free speech and Muslim activism. (similarity 0.87)
• Prevent’s stated all-threats remit masks a clear targeting of Muslims (similarity 0.85)
• Counter-terrorism policy must comply with statutory equality obligations (similarity 0.84)
• The UK’s counter-terrorism apparatus decentralizes surveillance into everyday public institutions, which enables discrimination. (similarity 0.84)
• Prevent funding was compulsory for authorities with large Muslim populations (similarity 0.83)
• Integration rhetoric predates anti-terror policy and lacks an evidence base (similarity 0.83)
• Integration discourse is deployed as state control over Muslims without evidence (similarity 0.83)

Broader Connections

• Prevent is discriminatory in operation and alienates the Muslims it aims to engage #corroborates (1.00) — Runnymede Trust (ed. Farah Elahi & Omar Khan), Islamophobia, 385
• Prevent is a racist, Islamophobic state policy causing concrete harms #corroborates (0.95) — Runnymede Trust (ed. Farah Elahi & Omar Khan), Islamophobia, 426
• Counter-terrorism policy and imposed loyalty requirements shaped Muslim political engagement #expands (0.85) — Runnymede Trust (ed. Farah Elahi & Omar Khan), Islamophobia, 138